Watching 20 hours of television each week may cut men's sperm counts in half
Source: CBS News
The amount of time spent in front of the television may affect more than belt size: A new study suggests sitting in front of the tube too much could also take a toll on a man's sperm count.
A new study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine on Feb. 4 showed that men who watched more than 20 hours a week of TV had almost half the sperm count of men who didn't watch TV at all.
"There had been a few reports linking very high levels of physical activity to higher sperm quality, but these studies had been linked to professional athletes and professional bicyclists who reached levels of physical activity higher than anyone else," study author Dr. Jorge Chavarro, assistant professor of nutrition and epidemiology at Harvard School of Public Health, said to CBSNews.com. Chavarro and his team wanted to find out how levels of physical activity affected non-athletes.
.......
Interestingly, men who watched more than 20 hours of TV a week had a 44 percent lower sperm count than men who watched the least amount of TV. The lowest category included anyone who watched less than four hours a week, but the average viewing time was 0 hours for that whole group.
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57567561/watching-20-hours-of-television-each-week-may-cut-mens-sperm-counts-in-half/
DURHAM D
(32,610 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Maybe there's hope for the species after all.
groundloop
(11,519 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I never seem to get things in the right place, which may explain the circumstance I mention in said misplaced post.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Unless there are some wood colts somewhere I don't know about, I'm an evolutionary dead end.
Tunkamerica
(4,444 posts)of tv a week. Does that make me not fit for reproduction? At home I rarely watch tv.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)oh, wait...
Robb
(39,665 posts)BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)groundloop
(11,519 posts)Turns out it sucks something else out of ya' as well.
SilveryMoon
(121 posts)geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)The theft of the human mind.
ncteechur
(3,071 posts)FailureToCommunicate
(14,014 posts)at least try to stick to correct usage. "Lees than" is for amounts, "fewer than" is for numbers: The people watched less TV. The people watched fewer hours of TV.
Sheesh.
(Don't mind me: I'm just bummed that I may have to cut back on watching Rev Sharpton, Rachel, and maybe even Lawrence O'Donnell...)
JusticeForAll
(1,222 posts)Exceptions
There are exceptions to these rules; for example, it is customary to use the word less to describe time, money, and distance (2, 3). For example, you could say, That wedding reception lasted less than two hours. I hope they paid the band less than $400. So keep in mind that time, money, and distance are different, but if you stick with the quick and dirty tip that less is for mass nouns and fewer is for count nouns, you'll be right most of the time.
timdog44
(1,388 posts)for Faux News. 20 hours a weeks will put evolution a good path.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)hardly have time for tv. and as my dr said. lying down and standing up only two positions the back should ever be in...
mpcamb
(2,871 posts)What 40 hours a week would do.
Tunkamerica
(4,444 posts)I 'll send you a sample.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)reduction in brain cell activity.
Hulk
(6,699 posts)...does to MY sperm count. But then again, "Do I want a high sperm count at my age?" Not sure this is a "bad thing".
bubbayugga
(222 posts)just saying.